Debates

[Definition - Animal Welfare] 1. The viewpoint that it is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare [Definition - Animal Rights] 1. The idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as...

The claim that animals have â€˜rightsâ€™ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of â€˜animal rightsâ€™ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the...

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate - I've been wanting to have this debate with my opponent specifically for awhile, so I hope this turns out well. To put it simply, it seems that Charlie here is one of the more prominent PETA advocates on this website, with his slew of PETA debates. Since it seems to be quite evident that he is in favor of PETA, one can easily draw the conclusion that he is also an animal right's activist - after all, if he isn't then he'd most likely be a hypocri...

Animal rights is ethically justified, in the fact that it's basic principle lies in the foundations of the value of life. If you believe that animal rights is unjustified then you also have to believe that human rights is unjustified. What makes someone care about another persons life? What makes me care about your life? Why are murderers sentenced to prison? Society as a whole puts value on life...and those that do not value life (like the murderers) are removed from society, and made to suffer...

Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded rights on the basis that they are able to think and to feel pain. Many other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are certainly able to feel pain. Therefore non-human animals should also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life....

The point of the FAIL debate is to see how bad our arguments can get. Off topic, terrible, insulting, this is the point of the FAIL debate.I will be arguing for animal rights, Con will argue against.Also thanks to Illegalcombatant for the idea.R1 for introductions. ...

First round will be for acceptance, following rounds for debate. Obviously, this is the current LD resolution. Let's try to debate it that way. Sources are important, but not overwhelmingly important. Logic, reason, etc. should be the grounds for compelling arguments. Kritiks are fine, so long as you do not willfully misinterpret the resolution or wage an assault on the dictionary. In our efforts we ought to mutually endeavor to test the strengths of our ideas, rather than quibble over phraseolo...